High Security Lock Development

In 2003 and 2004, a significant improvement in patent filings was shown with thousands of new patents filed every year. Most authors can only guess why this has happened, but they are generally attributed to the need to have a broad scope of analysis within their products. This sparked the idea of focusing on preserving basic security with other aspects of competitive advantage in mind. As we design software products today, there is a lot of “need for security” and a slightly greater need for “need for want” for everyone that are playing the game today.

Today's cyber security is built by the U.S government and relies heavily on information security like fingerprint scanning, fingerprint etc. but the late 1980s saw a significant rise in attacks targeting its traditional sources and sources of the relevant information. Achieving proper security without being locked in with the corporate demands of a Washington think tank or by fearing their intrepid inquires will lead them to dumping their stock is tough enough, but companies need to ensure they stay “on target”.

One particular lawsuit that has shaken the entire field in terms of achieving short term security goals is Microsoft’s $2.3 billion intellectual property lawsuit against IBM in 2000. While I think you have a very good idea of how the fight went as a lot of claims were rejected and technologies were implemented, I do want to comment a bit on the security build.

While the blame for the lawsuit lies with the marketing team at IBM, the structural and contractual problems caused as the company worked to employ larger Microsoft employees affected both the companies in terms of having a large pool of their technical specialists in short supply and switching between two different support methodologies in terms of running an IT or project development lifecycle. However, both companies capitalized on the problems they faced rather than fixing them. Instead of building security so that people would have some worries about critical pieces of software, these companies just put together a marketing team to deliberately build a security approach with a product that will indirectly cause them to be sentenced to using product revisions. In all, both companies were talking about security first and ignored creating a product with security in mind.

The main difference between IBM and Microsoft’s security in 2001 is that both firms attempted to develop technology that couldn’t be developed by competitors and hence remained behind the curve. If you are wary of Microsoft already having AI algorithms automatically classifying potential copyright infringements from every single bit of potentially derogatory spam e-mail, I would agree that security is an aspect they will need to also implement. But while you can’t tell me Microsoft are only looking to make AI assistants, once deployed in an organisation, everything else will be in a state of play.

The real problem from this particular standpoint is an emphasis on fear and unquestionability combined with fear of the unknown; to convince security professionals to leverage these two fears and not code security into an overall product so that they create a security solution that uses a different way of security by enhancing quality security. This can only mean a larger dependency on security specialists being birthed that may show off their skills in the way that no new security system could. For example, an analysis of real attacks.

I do think you are correct when you say, that Microsoft are miscalculating the root cause of the source of IBM’s legal woes. Ultimately the view that the securities agencies are at fault in figuring out the root cause of security could be a pretty good idea. It looks like a review of documents that don’t show what needs to be done and what isn’t. The system is the root cause of the problem. It is the attackers’ tools and techniques that make it an evolution of security that look. What they don’t do is solve it.

Either or, Microsoft should reconsider any kind of need to be so cautious that they go broke with security versus investing in security in the first place and seeing how their objectives are congruent with their client’s objectives. Before Microsoft went to court, they blew through a lot of money to rebuild their brands reputation. This was a waste of time and millions in the form of stolen consulting services. The main mistake with companies like IBM is that they cut spending, setting their firm in a poor legal spot for why such things are being even more trivial. Let me ask you something you may have had on your mind in the past. How much money have you spent last year on courts and legal bills to defend yourselves? They cost a whole lot of money. Not to mention, in the end, it has nothing to do with security in the first place.

Who knows that this could even lead to the double loss.